Recommended
Policy
Framework:
The Imperative
to Integrage
The Imperative to Integrate
Expanding Choices by Coordinating Transportation Planning and Governance
Cities
can actively incorporate shared-use options into their long-range
transportation vision. Coordination between city planners and transit agencies
is needed for the successful integration of shared-use mobility and public
transit. Most cities and regions implement transportation policy in a manner
that is far too siloed to adequately address shared-use options. This is hardly
a new phenomenon, but the rise of private shared-use providers has brought
renewed attention to the intergovernmental tensions and gaps that stymie
coordinated policy-making in many American cities. If the problem is not
addressed, the proliferation of private shared-use options will only exacerbate
it.
- Establish a coordinator of public- and private-sector shared-use mobility options in the regional transportation system
- Simplify payment options for riders
- Optimize service to increase the efficiency of the existing transportation network
- Use new, more comprehensive performance measures
1. Establish a
coordinator of public- and private-sector shared-use mobility options in the
transportation system
Cities and transit agencies have rarely been expected to coordinate
transportation options across modes and sectors. Instead, transit agencies are
expected to provide specific, discrete services such as buses or trains, and
city departments maintain that physical infrastructure (such as streets and
sidewalks) which is not exclusively used by a transit agency. Municipalities
also regulate for-hire providers, but they don’t often do so in the context of
overall future mobility needs and functions. It is rare that taxi regulators
and transit planners are in the same agency, or ever in the same room.
Consistent with our recommendation that public sector transportation
providers conceive of their mission more holistically, governments and agencies
should create a position, here called Director of Mobility, tasked with
coordinating the relationship between transit agencies, cities, and shared-use
mobility providers and facilitate their integration in the long term. This
position or positions should be the point of contact for private shared-use
providers who want to do business with the city, and would also coordinate with
public sector transit providers to improve travelers’ experiences across modes.
The institutional location of this position will necessarily vary by
region, but will be most successful be in the office with regional authority
over these connections. In Los Angeles, for example, where LA Metro enjoys a
regional mandate but the city does not, the transit authority is the logical
coordinator; in New York, the city Department of Transportation would probably
fit the description; in Portland, the regional Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
In the long term, as governments and private shared-use providers take
their first steps toward coordination, the Director of Mobility position might
ideally evolve into an institutionally independent organization. Though this
idea may seem strange in the context of American transportation policy, such
intergovernmental, multimodally focused organizations are already common in
Europe
Examples
Develop Partnerships
In the Twin Cities, Metro
Transit’s proposed Mobility Ecosystem Coordinator position is tasked with
developing stronger partnerships with public, private, and nonprofit
organizations, representing a variety of modal options, to reduce carbon
emissions and improve first- and last- mile connections to transit.
Alternative Transportation Goals
In Seattle, the city government created a
Mobility Program Manager position charged with developing and carrying out a visionary mobility program
which coordinates demand management, shared-use mobility, and active
transportation. The position works with multiple public/private non-traditional
transportation providers to achieve the goals of the Seattle Transit Plan which
outlines the
percentage of residents the city wants to have access to frequent transit
service by 2035.
Chief Innovation Officer
The
Los Angeles transit authority
created a position of Chief Innovation Officer charged with three tasks:
crafting a “high-level vision for LA Metro through
exposure to innovative people, organizations and industries,” helping Metro
staff with “piloting and implementing new and experimental programs and
policy,” and serving as “primary liaison for new ideas relevant to LA. Metro.
Coordinating Organization
The Paris region has long had
a public transportation coordinating organization, which since 2000 has been
called the Syndicat des transports d’Île-de-France (STIF). STIF sets fare
structures, creates long-term regional transportation plans, and oversees
contractual obligations. Though it has not yet delved into regulation of new
shared-use options, it has managed the complex network of private bus operators
in greater Paris known as OPTILE.
2. Simplify payment options for riders
Simplifying the user experience of transit is essential to increasing
its appeal. Cities and agencies need to design a common fare structure and
medium that works across transit and shared-use modes, addresses unbanked
populations, and encourages would-be riders.
Rather than relying on proprietary fare media and payment systems,
instead work toward the adoption of a universal payment network that allows for
multiple payment options. Account for the payment methods that people already
use, such as credit and debit accounts, while also incorporating smartphone
payment technologies such as Android Pay and Apple Pay.
The implementation of new payment systems need not be top-down. Cities
could issue RFPs inviting third-party developers to create the best multimodal
fare payment system in exchange for a small transaction fee. Require shared-use
providers to accept payment via the universal payment system through
specifications in contracts with city governments and transit agencies.
Examples
Pay-As-You-Go
Transport for London (TfL) has been a global leader among transit providers in fare payment innovations. All buses and rail lines in London now accept contactless payment, can be provided via an RFID “Oyster” card or via a smartphone. Notably, smartphone payment is now seamlessly integrated with TfL’s “pay-as-you-go” system, which charges travelers a zone-based fare per ride but sets a daily and weekly cap which, once reached, renders all subsequent rides that day or week essentially free of charge. Though TfL’s system is not yet integrated with shared-use providers, it nonetheless provides a more advanced technological model that American ciites and transit agencies can build on
Contactless Payment
Chicago’s recently introduced payment system, called Ventra,
has eliminated the middle stage of payment that transit “fare” (whether on a
ticket or an RFID card) used to represent. Instead, Ventra allows riders to pay
for rides or bikeshare trips directly out of a debit account linked to the
Ventra card, a contactless bank or credit card, or a mobile payment-enabled
smartphone.
Partner Apps
BCycle is a bikeshare company currently managing 27 urban
bikeshare systems in the U.S. Users of BCycle bikes can now pay for their bikeshare
ride through Ridescout, which began as a trip-planning app but has now evolved
into a facilitator of mobile bikeshare.
3. Optimize service to increase the efficiency of the existing transportation network
The greatest promise of shared-use mobility providers is in their
potential to encourage city dwellers to adopt car-free or car-light lifestyles.
With the exception of bikeshare, however, sole reliance on shared-use options
without transit is more expensive than car ownership. A behavior shift away
from car ownership will only occur if a frequent, reliable, easy-to-use transit
network exists to complement carshare, bikeshare, and ridesourcing services.
Redesign service networks not only with travelers’ current mobility
needs in mind, but with consideration for how new shared-use options can fit
into an ideal transit network. Agencies must design their networks using
shared-use modes along with high- and low-frequency transit service, express
service, and paratransit. Communicate this network to riders with branding and
marketing through schedules, maps, and smartphone apps.
No network redesign will make transit fit the mobility needs of every
traveler all the time, but if a network redesign makes transit a significantly
more viable option for a large number of trips, travelers will grasp the money-
and time-saving potential of not owning a car and instead use shared-use modes
to “fill the gaps” in the transit network. In the long run, city governments
and transit agencies may wish to consider actively integrating shared-use
options into their networks via contractual arrangements to replace routes with
low ridership and high operating costs or to complement overcrowded routes in
high ridership corridors.
Examples
Redesign of Car-Reliant Areas
Houston’s transit agency undertook a substantial redesign of
its bus network, focusing on several core corridors and eliminating infrequent
and poorly used bus routes. Combined with expansions to the city’s relatively
new light-rail system, the redesign is intended to increase the appeal of
transit in a famously car-reliant metropolitan area. Initial ridership reports
show promising increases, though the full effects of the changes will not be
measurable for several years. Hartford
and Austin are now exploring a similar redesign.
Multi-Modal Authority
In Vancouver, the regional transit
operator Translink describes itself as an “integrated multi-modal
transportation authority.” The agency has developed service optimization
guidelines that outline how Translink must evaluate the efficacy of current
routes and how to reallocate transit resources from areas of low ridership to
parts of the region where demand is higher. Translink also communicates to
users (via maps and schedules) a formal hierarchy of service that contrasts the
frequent bus and rail network with low-frequency services intended to provide
coverage. The policy indicates the corridors in which Translink intends to
concentrate its future investments, in the process informing employers and
residents where in the region they should locate if they want access to
high-quality transit service.
4. Use new, more comprehensive performance measures
For decades, transit agencies have used a relatively small number of
fairly straightforward metrics to determine institutional performance:
ridership, vehicle-hours, vehicle-miles, vehicles operated in maximum service,
the “peak-to-base” ratio, the farebox recovery ratio, and the money expended
per passenger-mile are some of the most relied upon. These are adequate
performance metrics for how well an agency is doing, but they don’t answer the
question of whether it has the right goals to begin with.
If, as we believe, agencies and city governments should take advantage
of shared-use options to maximize mobility for citizens rather than simply
offer a discrete transit service, these performance metrics are no longer
adequate ways of measuring the efficacy of a multimodal transit system. As the
public entities tasked with managing and maintaining a regional system of
mobility options, transit agencies and city governments need to begin measuring
performance in ways that capture the wide variety of societal benefits that
transit and shared-use can provide.
Examples
Mobility-on-Demand Sandbox
The
Federal Transit Administration is
offering funding through its upcoming Mobility-on-Demand Sandbox program to
explore new models of integrated transit
and shared-use mobility provision. As part of this effort, FTA is developing
performance metrics that are focused on the user’s experience of the mobility
system as a whole rather than on the operation of traditional public
transportation alone.
Multi-Modal Authority
Virginia’s DOT publicly ranks
transportation projects for funding, scoring them
across modes using broad performance measures including jobs accessibility,
disadvantaged communities jobs accessibility, and access to multimodal choices
